![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 12:53:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-krymehygenzhumnty » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 12:31:22
> > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
>
> > > Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
> > >
> > > If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?
>
> > You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
> >
> > At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportive
>
> I understand.
>
> What, if anything, should Dr. Hsiung do in order to remediate or mitigate the development of antisemitism that you deem as being theoretically possible as a result of his not sanctioning the posts that concern you?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
It is not as simple as deleting those posts. For Mr. Hsiung has posted what can be seen as an attempt to justify allowing those statements to remain unsanctioned. He also takes back what he said that shows that a subset of readers could have been misled to believe that he understood that one match could start a forest fire and so he does not wait to sanction incivility and that if a statement was unsanctioned that it was not against his rules. He has also revised his FAQ recently secretly and will not post a disclosure to alert readers what these revisions are. This all goes to show his state of mind and to what his intent could be in allowing anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted. Any solution to the allowing of the statements that defame Jews could be dealt with by posting his tagline to please be civil to those statements in question and citing the rule that is involved as a temporary means to stop other readers to think that they are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole because Mr. Hsiung thinks that, to remain unsanctioned where they are originally posted.
The harm that could have come from those statements unsanctioned and continue to be able to cause harm, can not be erased. Nor does posting his tagline to be civil annul the fact that readers could think that he is allowing anti-Semitic hate to remain unsanctioned because he says that he does what will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking. As to how anyone could evaluate as to if or if not it will be good for this community as a whole, one could look back to the historical record and see what happened to communities where anti-Semitic hate was state-sponsored on the basis that the leader allowed anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 20:16:50
In reply to Lou's reply-pstehtsponsoard » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 12:53:14
> > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
> > > > Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
> > > > If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?> > > You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
> > >
> > > At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportive
> > I understand.
> >
> > What, if anything, should Dr. Hsiung do in order to remediate or mitigate the development of antisemitism that you deem as being theoretically possible as a result of his not sanctioning the posts that concern you?> It is not as simple as deleting those posts. For Mr. Hsiung has posted what can be seen as an attempt to justify allowing those statements to remain unsanctioned.
What are the reasons offered by Dr. Hsiung as to why he will not sanction the statements you identify as being problematic?
> He also takes back what he said that shows that a subset of readers could have been misled to believe that he understood that one match could start a forest fire and so he does not wait to sanction incivility and that if a statement was unsanctioned that it was not against his rules.
Do you feel that these new moderation policies should be applied retroactively by editing the posting archives?
I don't see any forest fires. Do you? If there are no forest fires, perhaps the history of posts that concern you have not had the sociological consequences that worry you. Of course, it is conceivable that these posts have influenced people who read them, but who either never post or whose posts do not reveal such influences.
> He has also revised his FAQ recently secretly and will not post a disclosure to alert readers what these revisions are.
Interesting.
> This all goes to show his state of mind and to what his intent could be in allowing anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
This is a very alarming statement. What do you think is the intent of Dr. Hsiung?
> Any solution to the allowing of the statements that defame Jews could be dealt with by posting his tagline to please be civil to those statements
I am undecided as to whether or not it makes sense to edit the archives or comment on the civility of posts residing in antiquity.
> The harm that could have come from those statements unsanctioned and continue to be able to cause harm, can not be erased.
I do understand the point that you are making here. However, I don't agree with you that the posts you have historically cited as being capable of arousing antisemitism are themselves antisemitic.
> Nor does posting his tagline to be civil annul the fact that readers could think that he is allowing anti-Semitic hate to remain unsanctioned
Wouldn't replying to a post using a subject line saying, "please be civil" serve as a sanction? Regardless, I am not in favor of combing through the archives for questionable verbiage.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 9:49:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstehtsponsoard » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 20:16:50
> > > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
>
> > > > > Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
>
> > > > > If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?
>
> > > > You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
> > > >
> > > > At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportive
>
> > > I understand.
> > >
> > > What, if anything, should Dr. Hsiung do in order to remediate or mitigate the development of antisemitism that you deem as being theoretically possible as a result of his not sanctioning the posts that concern you?
>
> > It is not as simple as deleting those posts. For Mr. Hsiung has posted what can be seen as an attempt to justify allowing those statements to remain unsanctioned.
>
> What are the reasons offered by Dr. Hsiung as to why he will not sanction the statements you identify as being problematic?
>
> > He also takes back what he said that shows that a subset of readers could have been misled to believe that he understood that one match could start a forest fire and so he does not wait to sanction incivility and that if a statement was unsanctioned that it was not against his rules.
>
> Do you feel that these new moderation policies should be applied retroactively by editing the posting archives?
>
> I don't see any forest fires. Do you? If there are no forest fires, perhaps the history of posts that concern you have not had the sociological consequences that worry you. Of course, it is conceivable that these posts have influenced people who read them, but who either never post or whose posts do not reveal such influences.
>
> > He has also revised his FAQ recently secretly and will not post a disclosure to alert readers what these revisions are.
>
> Interesting.
>
> > This all goes to show his state of mind and to what his intent could be in allowing anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
>
> This is a very alarming statement. What do you think is the intent of Dr. Hsiung?
>
> > Any solution to the allowing of the statements that defame Jews could be dealt with by posting his tagline to please be civil to those statements
>
> I am undecided as to whether or not it makes sense to edit the archives or comment on the civility of posts residing in antiquity.
>
> > The harm that could have come from those statements unsanctioned and continue to be able to cause harm, can not be erased.
>
> I do understand the point that you are making here. However, I don't agree with you that the posts you have historically cited as being capable of arousing antisemitism are themselves antisemitic.
>
> > Nor does posting his tagline to be civil annul the fact that readers could think that he is allowing anti-Semitic hate to remain unsanctioned
>
> Wouldn't replying to a post using a subject line saying, "please be civil" serve as a sanction? Regardless, I am not in favor of combing through the archives for questionable verbiage.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...What are the reasons offered by (Mr.) Hsiung as to why he will not sanction the statements you identify as being (anti-Semitic and defaming toward you, Lou)...].
The overriding reason that readers could think as to Mr. Hsiung allowing anti-Semitic statements and defamation against me to stand here where they are originally posted as to be seen as supportive and civil by the nature that he does not add his tagline to please be civil to those, is in his overriding TOS/FAQ here that states that he is doing what {in his thinking} will be good for this community as a whole and that he is using fairness and The Golden Rule in what he does.
That could influence and encourage and develop anti-Semitic hate here to be spread by the internet to users all over the world as the anti-Semitic statements could be considered by readers as civil and will be good on the basis that they are allowed to be seen unsanctioned, and that support takes precedence according to Mr. Hsiung so that readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive {in Mr. Hsiung's thinking}. That is a powerful influence to children that see a psychiatrist saying that he does what will be good for this community as a whole and allow anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive.
The use of his site to sanction statements that put him down while allowing statements that could put down Jews to be seen as supportive, could be considered by a subset of readers as being discriminatory and constitute an abuse of power. The tragic consequences that could be a result of a leader abusing power to allow antisemitic hate to be seen as supportive is in the historical record. The fire of hate can spread by the embers blowing in the wind to fall on the minds of young minds to induce hatred toward the Jews in their minds in the community that they reside. That could be in communities all over the world. It can be an influence that if left to burn, could result in the murder and suicide of innocent people. And as long as those hateful statements remain to be seen as supportive here, the fire of hate is still burning.
Mr. Hsiung's policy here that one match could start a forest fire so that he does not wait to sanction unsupportive statements was in place when these statements of hate were developed over the years. The fact that he now says that he does not hold to his own stated policy, does not annul the fact that one match could indeed start a forest fire and that statements of hatred toward the Jews being allowed to stand here can still stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews even if they are not on the front page, for readers can come to this site via a search that could land them on any page, not just the opening page. By him changing his mind, that does not change the reality of the horrible consequences that could happen to Jews throughout the world. For as the parent IMHHHO needs to be the exemplar to their children, IMHHHHHO so shall the leader of a community be the exemplar to the members. To be the exemplar to the members that anti-Semitism is supportive, is a perversion of The Golden Rule.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2014, at 9:59:12
In reply to Lou's reply-ehybuze » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 9:49:06
> > > > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
Do these opportunities still exist?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 10:13:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-ehybuze » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 14, 2014, at 9:59:12
> > > > > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
>
> Do these opportunities still exist?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You asked if the opportunity for Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to address the anti-Semitism still exists.
There are years of outstanding notifications from me that went to all the deputies as well as Mr. Hsiung and he says that in his TOS that he is sure to get those. So any denying of that fact, could be considered by a subset of readers to be a lie. This brings up as to {what if} a deputy of record addressed the anti-Semitic hate and the defamation against me here that is standing unsanctioned now?
Now Mr. Hsiung states that any reply comes from {all of us} meaning him and all of his deputies. That could mean to a subset of readers that no reply at all from them, constitute evasion and deceit and a conspiracy to defame me and the Jews. Those readers could have a rational basis to think that on what the record here shows, as in the years of unanswered requests from me and the anti-Semitic statements and defamation against me here being allowed to stand by all of them. The question now is how can all of the defamation and hatred toward the Jews that could be seen as civil and supportive and that it will be good for this community as a whole {in Mr. Hsiung's thinking} for those statements to be allowed to stand, be attended to now.
I ask you.
Lou
Posted by pontormo on September 14, 2014, at 11:48:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-greanpheeldz » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 10:43:41
> >
> > > But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I don't follow.
> >
> > 1. Who are "they" who "shall perish" unless "one repents'?
> >
> > 2. And why should "they" perish just because "one" hasn't repented? If "they" repent isn't that enough as to "them'?
> >
> > Are you saying that Bob's repentance is the only one that matters here, and that on his repentence everyone else's fate depends?
> >
> > 3. And what exactly does "perish" mean? Could you elucidate?
> >
> > pontormo,
> You asked,[...Who are "they" and who 'shall perish" unless "one repents"...].
> The scriptures that the Jews use states that [...all we like sheep have gone astray...we have turned everyone to his own way...]. and those scriptures also state, [...Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon..].
> It has been revealed to me that repentance is this "returning" to God. It involves going down a broken road to find a path that returns them to God. This repentance leads to a new heart, a new spirit, into a new realm. And as I try to explain this to my Christiandom friends, I tell them that this Jesus of Nazareth first said,[....Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...].
> And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, he said to me, "The Lord is your Shepherd, He will restore your soul, He will lead you in the paths of righteousness out of the raging sea of dirt and mire to be led to the still waters of peace and joy, back to the green fields that you used to know."
> Lou
>
>
>
>>>Sorry, Lou. I still don't understand.
1 You don't say who "they" who "shall perish" are.
An answer to that question would define a category of persons who comprise "they." Is "they" posters on psychobabble? particular posters on psychobabble? I simply don't know what or who you mean.
2. Who is this "one" who must repent because the Wrath of this God is so great?
An answer would name this "one"-- I assume one person? you have in mind.
3. You also don't define what "perish" means. Usually "perish" means "die." But since everyone dies-- and here you say that if this "one" repents others won't "perish," you must mean something other than "die" in any literal sense.~~~
~~Could you please explain then what definition you give you "perish" in this sense?
~~~These are fairly simple, literal questions. I'm asking what and who you are referring to, and what would happen to them if they don't return to your (?) God.
Unless you can, readers like myself can only guess at who and what you are trying to say.~~~~Ie: How does what you write apply to anything on this website -- posters here, Bob, what will happen as a result of the Wrath of your God --
Can you explain that-- ie can you put that into simpler or more concrete terms?
for example, "green fields" do not mean anything to me. I have never been on green fields; therefore I cannot return to them. If you mean metaphoric "green fields" as some poetic idea of a happy place, I still don't know how that applies to psychobabble.
That's what I'm asking.
The information in your reply to me doesn't make this more clear.
thanks
Posted by pontormo on September 14, 2014, at 11:52:55
In reply to Lou's reply-eyeaskyu » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 10:13:47
Lou, you have said that many posters here, including myself, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott are guilty of anti-semitism and/or defamation of you.
Are you then asking that all the many posts written by many posters, that you have said were anti-semitic and/or defamatory, should be sanctioned by Bob?
Also, have you added up the number of unresponded-to notifications? If so, how many are there, in your count?
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 20:45:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-greanpheeldz, posted by pontormo on September 14, 2014, at 11:48:58
> > >
> > > > But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't follow.
> > >
> > > 1. Who are "they" who "shall perish" unless "one repents'?
> > >
> > > 2. And why should "they" perish just because "one" hasn't repented? If "they" repent isn't that enough as to "them'?
> > >
> > > Are you saying that Bob's repentance is the only one that matters here, and that on his repentence everyone else's fate depends?
> > >
> > > 3. And what exactly does "perish" mean? Could you elucidate?
> > >
> > > pontormo,
> > You asked,[...Who are "they" and who 'shall perish" unless "one repents"...].
> > The scriptures that the Jews use states that [...all we like sheep have gone astray...we have turned everyone to his own way...]. and those scriptures also state, [...Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon..].
> > It has been revealed to me that repentance is this "returning" to God. It involves going down a broken road to find a path that returns them to God. This repentance leads to a new heart, a new spirit, into a new realm. And as I try to explain this to my Christiandom friends, I tell them that this Jesus of Nazareth first said,[....Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...].
> > And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, he said to me, "The Lord is your Shepherd, He will restore your soul, He will lead you in the paths of righteousness out of the raging sea of dirt and mire to be led to the still waters of peace and joy, back to the green fields that you used to know."
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
>
> Sorry, Lou. I still don't understand.
>
> 1 You don't say who "they" who "shall perish" are.
>
> An answer to that question would define a category of persons who comprise "they." Is "they" posters on psychobabble? particular posters on psychobabble? I simply don't know what or who you mean.
>
> 2. Who is this "one" who must repent because the Wrath of this God is so great?
>
> An answer would name this "one"-- I assume one person? you have in mind.
>
> 3. You also don't define what "perish" means. Usually "perish" means "die." But since everyone dies-- and here you say that if this "one" repents others won't "perish," you must mean something other than "die" in any literal sense.~~~
>
> ~~Could you please explain then what definition you give you "perish" in this sense?
>
> ~~~These are fairly simple, literal questions. I'm asking what and who you are referring to, and what would happen to them if they don't return to your (?) God.
>
>
> Unless you can, readers like myself can only guess at who and what you are trying to say.
>
> ~~~~Ie: How does what you write apply to anything on this website -- posters here, Bob, what will happen as a result of the Wrath of your God --
>
> Can you explain that-- ie can you put that into simpler or more concrete terms?
>
> for example, "green fields" do not mean anything to me. I have never been on green fields; therefore I cannot return to them. If you mean metaphoric "green fields" as some poetic idea of a happy place, I still don't know how that applies to psychobabble.
>
> That's what I'm asking.
>
> The information in your reply to me doesn't make this more clear.
>
> thanks
> portormo,
You asked for me to explain the word "parish" as in what I wrote here.
It has been revealed to me that one could not die even though all die as you wrote. But one can overcome death and never die. Now when I use the word "one", I am referring to any and all humans, not the number one.
In my use of the word "parish", the verse cited was that unless one repents, they shall perish. This means that if one does repent, they will not perish, or die as you wrote. Those that repent can receive Eternal Life and never die, as it has been revealed to me.
And going back to that Road that I was writing about, the broken road, that is the road with heartaches and evilness that many take that goes away from God (readers be advised that the God in my writings is the God that the Jews give service and worship to). And on that road, they could turn back, back to God from where they once belonged. It is this turning back to God that I have been writing about here. For all we like sheep have gone astray as the scripture states, but there could be a calling from the Shepherd to turn around before it is too late. For the broken road leads to death.
And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, whose voice I heard, I turned and asked who he was and He said to me, "My sheep hear my voice. I am the Good Shepherd and I give them Eternal Life and they shall never perish."
Lou
>
>
>
Posted by pontormo on September 15, 2014, at 11:53:16
In reply to Lou's reply-hrmyvoyc » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 20:45:10
That definitely clears that up. So you meant simply, unless one repents, she or he will perish-- I get it.
But are you saying, then, that you will never die? I ask out of curiosity because I've never heard of that claim before.
However thanks a lot for clearing up my misunderstanding.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2014, at 12:22:26
In reply to Lou's reply-hrmyvoyc » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 20:45:10
> It has been revealed to me that one could not die even though all die as you wrote. But one can overcome death and never die.
> In my use of the word "parish", the verse cited was that unless one repents, they shall perish. This means that if one does repent, they will not perish, or die as you wrote. Those that repent can receive Eternal Life and never die, as it has been revealed to me.
> And going back to that Road that I was writing about, the broken road, that is the road with heartaches and evilness that many take that goes away from God (readers be advised that the God in my writings is the God that the Jews give service and worship to).
> And on that road, they could turn back, back to God from where they once belonged. It is this turning back to God that I have been writing about here. For all we like sheep have gone astray as the scripture states, but there could be a calling from the Shepherd to turn around before it is too late. For the broken road leads to death.
Your declarations appear to be exclusionist to me.
Do you see any similarities between your declarations and the following verse from the New Testament?
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2014, at 15:46:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hrmyvoyc, posted by pontormo on September 15, 2014, at 11:53:16
> That definitely clears that up. So you meant simply, unless one repents, she or he will perish-- I get it.
>
> But are you saying, then, that you will never die? I ask out of curiosity because I've never heard of that claim before.
>
> However thanks a lot for clearing up my misunderstanding.
>
>
> pontormo,
You asked if I am saying that I will never die.
That is correct.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2014, at 16:23:18
In reply to Lou's reply- » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2014, at 15:46:27
> > That definitely clears that up. So you meant simply, unless one repents, she or he will perish-- I get it.
> >
> > But are you saying, then, that you will never die? I ask out of curiosity because I've never heard of that claim before.
> >
> > However thanks a lot for clearing up my misunderstanding.
> >
> >
> > pontormo,
> You asked if I am saying that I will never die.
> That is correct.
> Lou
>
> pontormo,
We have looked at,[...all we like sheep have gone astray...]. Those astray sheep are lost. But now let us look at what David, a king of the Jews, wrote.
The Lord is my shepherd
I shall not want
He makes me to lie down in green pastures (green fields)
He leads me beside the still waters
He restores my soul
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil for you are with me with your rod and staff that comfort me
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my ememies..you anoint my head with oil...my cup runs over
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever.
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on September 15, 2014, at 17:26:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-eyeaskyu, posted by pontormo on September 14, 2014, at 11:52:55
>>Also, have you added up the number of unresponded-to notifications? If so, how many are there, in your count?
Perhaps - if Lou answers this question - he would also be willing to specifically, explicitly explain what "unresponded to" means to him. I, for one, would love to know. At times, it has seemed to mean something far different from what I believe the common meaning to be...
just sayin'
Posted by 10derheart on September 15, 2014, at 17:39:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hrmyvoyc » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 15, 2014, at 12:22:26
Oh sheesh, Scott, you've done it now.
I don't believe that verse is allowed here. For discussion, for illustration, comparison, reference, analogy, to practice typing, or any other reason you can imagine. In fact, I think (at least for me-an evil, nasty "deputy of record") when I even accidentally glance down at John 14:6 in my Bible that I am practicing 'thought-anti-Semitism.'
I just can't get the concept through my thick head, apparently.
no. no. no. bad Scott. { ;-) }
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2014, at 19:59:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hrmyvoyc » SLS, posted by 10derheart on September 15, 2014, at 17:39:47
> Oh sheesh, Scott, you've done it now.
Uh-oh.
> I don't believe that verse is allowed here.
Hmm. I did not know this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Where can I find a statement describing this policy?
> no. no. no. bad Scott. { ;-) }
I happily submit to your rebuke.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on September 15, 2014, at 20:51:35
In reply to Lou's reply- » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2014, at 15:46:27
Lou if I die you die it's only fair. Phillipa
Posted by bryte on September 15, 2014, at 23:02:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hrmyvoyc » SLS, posted by 10derheart on September 15, 2014, at 17:39:47
1=1
1-1=0
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 6:35:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 15, 2014, at 20:51:35
> Lou if I die you die it's only fair. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote the above.
Now all do die as the scriptures that the Jews use reveal how the God that the Jews give service and worship to created man. And those scriptures say that man was created out of the dust of the ground and that God breathed his spirit into man to give life to him to live forever and placed him in The Garden. And that at death he would return to dust. But the scriptures go on to say that the body returns to the dust of the ground but the spirit of man returns to God. The body does perish, but what of the spirit of man? Job asked, when a man dies, will he live again? And Daniel said that there would be a resurrection of the dead. And David said that he would dwell in the house of the Lord {forever}.
But there is much more to this. For the scriptures write that some could not experience the sting of death and not be harmed by {The Lake of Fire} and when their body dies, they will live for eternity as {Sons of God}.
I have written here about two roads. One a broad road that leads to destruction. And another Road that is a narrow road, that leads to Eternal Life. And the scriptures say that all we like sheep have gone astray. All of us are at one time lost sheep, without a Shepherd.
Now you may already know that I have been writing here about a Rider on a white horse. That Rider is The Word of God. And He was there in the beginning, in the midst of The Garden of Paradise.
But then along came Satan. And lied to them which brought death into the world. But the good news is that the Rider on the white horse would reverse death to bring back the Garden of Paradise to man again so that death is destroyed and there could be eternal life once again.
The Rider is seeking the lost sheep today. He is calling all, for all we like sheep have gone astray. His voice can be received, and many receive Him and go on the become Sons of God, changing their minds while on the broad broken road that leads to death, to turn around and go on the narrow road that leads to eternal life. And that life is exempt from the sting of death and the harm of The Lake of Fire.
And on that broad road there is psychology and psychiatry and religion and humanism and philosophy and atheism and others to choose from. And on the narrow road, there is no choice, for you are alone. And you can determine for yourself if that the heavens declare the Glory of God.
And while I was on that Road, I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse. And He said to me, "If you believe in God, believe in me also, for I have come to seek the lost sheep of The House of Israel."
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2014, at 7:33:34
In reply to Lou's reply-turowdz » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 6:35:49
> God in my writings is the God that the Jews give service and worship to.
> For all we like sheep have gone astray as the scripture states, but there could be a calling from the Shepherd to turn around before it is too late. For the broken road leads to death.
> And while I was on that Road, I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse. And He said to me, "If you believe in God, believe in me also, for I have come to seek the lost sheep of The House of Israel."
Are Buddhists and Christians eligible for Eternal life, or must they believe in the god that Jews give service and worship to - as well as the Rider you speak of - in order to receive this?
That sounds a lot like the posts that you found in the Psych-Babble archive that you now demand to be sanctioned.
What do you think of the following post?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040113/msgs/323021.html
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2014, at 7:36:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hrmyvoyc » 10derheart, posted by bryte on September 15, 2014, at 23:02:13
> 1=1
> 1-1=0I am sure that there is a clever and profound meaning to be found in your post. However, I must admit that I am clueless as to what that meaning is.
- Scott
Posted by pontormo on September 16, 2014, at 11:28:00
In reply to Lou's reply-turowdz » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 6:35:49
Lou--
I said, that all people die, ie perish.
Then you said that not all die.
The common meaning of "die" refers to a death of the physical aspect of a person, which, might be identified with the person's spirit or not.
We all know what this meaning is.
So clearly I asked if you believed that you would die physically or not.
You said, no, you would not die physically.
Could you answer whether or not you'll die physically as everyone else does?
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 16:47:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-turowdz, posted by pontormo on September 16, 2014, at 11:28:00
> Lou--
>
> I said, that all people die, ie perish.
>
> Then you said that not all die.
>
> The common meaning of "die" refers to a death of the physical aspect of a person, which, might be identified with the person's spirit or not.
>
> We all know what this meaning is.
>
> So clearly I asked if you believed that you would die physically or not.
>
> You said, no, you would not die physically.
>
> Could you answer whether or not you'll die physically as everyone else does?
>
> pontormo,
I am not claiming that my physical body will never die and return to the dust in the ground.
But death has been revealed to me to be an enemy. And death could be victorious or defeated.
You may already know that I have been writing here about two minds. One mind is the mind that you are born with, the flesh mind, the natural mind, the carnal mind. There is another mind that can be imputed into you from above, the spiritual mind. It has been revealed to me that to be carnally minded is death. And to be spiritually minded is life and peace. The spiritual mind has the victory over death and there is no sting in death to those that are spiritually minded. Death is defeated even though the carnal body dies. And then a spiritual body takes over the spiritual mind, in the spiritual realm. It has been revealed to me that there is no sting of death in those who die in the spiritually minded state, and have overcome the carnal mind. The grave has no victory over those and there is no sting of death and they are restored to eternal life as it was intended in the beginning, before the Great Deception caused death to come to all. This deception is still being promulgated in the world inducing death and keeping people from overcoming the carnal mind, the world and the deceiver.
And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, He said to me, "These things have I spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world. And he that overcomes, will I give to eat of The Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God"
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2014, at 21:36:47
In reply to Lou's reply-treovlyph » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 16:47:26
Hi Lou.
> And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, He said to me, "These things have I spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world. And he that overcomes, will I give to eat of The Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God"
I don't have the same spiritual belief system that you do.
I respect you.
I am tolerant of our differences.
I enjoy our similarities.
I acknowledge that there are opposing religious dogmas to reconcile if I am going to participate on the Faith board in a way that allows me to support myself and others.
I often encounter people whose passions run high when discussing religion. I try to be patient and strive to be tolerant of these passions while recognizing my own.
It occurs from time to time that someone will post something on the Faith board that I find challenging. Some things offend me. Some things scare me. However, I have concluded that it is best if the Faith board not become a battlefield. There is an abundance of Internet forums that serve as sites to wage war more efficiently.
A subset of readers could come to the conclusion that your writings along this thread suggest that Christians and non-believers of the Rider will be excluded from Eternal Life in Paradise.
I am tolerant of your expressing your beliefs, even though your posts could arouse antichristianism. Do you think I should petition Dr. Bob to sanction them, anyway?
I prefer to let your posts stand. They don't seem to attack anyone personally. Nor do they attack any named religions, even though your beliefs could be seen as being exclusionist.
We probably agree that there are very real dangers to be found in prejudice and institutionalized hate. Why have you chosen Psycho-Babble to be a battlefield?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 7:39:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-treovlyph » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 16, 2014, at 21:36:47
> Hi Lou.
>
> > And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, He said to me, "These things have I spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world. And he that overcomes, will I give to eat of The Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God"
>
> I don't have the same spiritual belief system that you do.
>
> I respect you.
>
> I am tolerant of our differences.
>
> I enjoy our similarities.
>
> I acknowledge that there are opposing religious dogmas to reconcile if I am going to participate on the Faith board in a way that allows me to support myself and others.
>
> I often encounter people whose passions run high when discussing religion. I try to be patient and strive to be tolerant of these passions while recognizing my own.
>
> It occurs from time to time that someone will post something on the Faith board that I find challenging. Some things offend me. Some things scare me. However, I have concluded that it is best if the Faith board not become a battlefield. There is an abundance of Internet forums that serve as sites to wage war more efficiently.
>
> A subset of readers could come to the conclusion that your writings along this thread suggest that Christians and non-believers of the Rider will be excluded from Eternal Life in Paradise.
>
> I am tolerant of your expressing your beliefs, even though your posts could arouse antichristianism. Do you think I should petition Dr. Bob to sanction them, anyway?
>
> I prefer to let your posts stand. They don't seem to attack anyone personally. Nor do they attack any named religions, even though your beliefs could be seen as being exclusionist.
>
> We probably agree that there are very real dangers to be found in prejudice and institutionalized hate. Why have you chosen Psycho-Babble to be a battlefield?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You wrote,[...I am tolerant of your expressing your beliefs even though your posts could arouse antichristianism ...].
I am unsure as to what your criteria are that allows you to state that what I have written here could arouse antichristianism. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that my posts here could arouse antichristianism?
B. Which post, if any, substantiates your claim, if you post something here to do so.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2014, at 8:24:58
In reply to Lou's reply-tehykehywhey » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 7:39:10
> A. What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that my posts here could arouse antichristianism?
What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that there are posts existing in the archives that could arouse antisemitism?
> B. Which post, if any, substantiates your claim, if you post something here to do so.
If one were to examine the sum of all of your posts along this thread, they would see in your statements the suggestion that one will not reach Paradise nor receive Eternal Life unless they believe in both the god of the Jews and the Rider that you speak of. Christians do not believe in the god of the Jews. They believe in the Trinity. They also do not believe that it be necessary to believe in some Rider in order to reverse their direction down the Road you describe and turn towards the god that will guarantee that they not perish.
It seems to me that if you were to evaluate your words here as you have evaluated the words to be found in the posts of others that quote the verse contained in the book of John 14:6 of the New Testament, you must conclude that your writings could arouse antichristianism.
You have done here to others that which you decry others have done to you.
You now see how difficult it is to state one's beliefs without potentially offending or upsetting others. You have argued that stating the exclusionist principles of one's religion necessarily puts-down all other religions. That is exactly what you have done here.
Perhaps it is time for you to let go of your crusade to sanction those posts in the archives that you argue have the potential to arouse antisemitism. Your posts here have no less potential to arouse antchristianism.
- Scott
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.